RE: Note on Scenarios for IPv6

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Thanks then we can add that to our Ent docs without saying names. 
For example then Government would cover Commerce, Military, Energy, but
would differentiate research as different.  These folks are moving NOW
with IPv6 and ahead of this group with scenarios fyi in most
geographies.
/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:19 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Margaret Wasserman; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Note on Scenarios for IPv6
> 
> 
> Sure. "A bank". "A large IT company"....
> 
>    Brian
> 
> "Bound, Jim" wrote:
> > 
> > Brian,
> > 
> > Assume the customers can remain anonymous?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > /jim
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:34 AM
> > > To: Bound, Jim
> > > Cc: Margaret Wasserman; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: Note on Scenarios for IPv6
> > >
> > >
> > > I made the comment a few weeks ago that the enterprise document 
> > > should include some customer-scenario use cases, to validate the 
> > > technical scenarios as being relevant - and Jim 
> acknowledged this as 
> > > a useful thing to add. But I don't think that means there 
> is a basic 
> > > scope problem with the document.
> > >
> > >    Brian
> > >
> > > "Bound, Jim" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Margaret,
> > > >
> > > > I won't inline comment (not because I am lazy) because I am in 
> > > > tune with your mail and agree.  I am fully on board with the
> > > v6ops charter
> > > > to see if it works.  I stated my input on that but can move
> > > on if that
> > > > is what the team wants to do, except for very rare cases (e.g. 
> > > > Stateful being a SHOULD in node reqs and will fight the to the 
> > > > IESG most likely).
> > > >
> > > > What I was referencing (not picking on Pekka) was Pekka's
> > > mail to our
> > > > Ent draft and short discussion Pekka had with Bob Fink 
> regarding 
> > > > defining the IPv4 Enterprise in scenarios not IPv6.
> > > Granted it was a
> > > > short mail exchange, and I could be reading to much into
> > > it.  But, I
> > > > have seen this type of mail in our culture cause raging debate 
> > > > over the assumptions and goals, and we end up back at the
> > > starting gate. So
> > > > given many years here I am a bit nervous on the amount of
> > > energy I put
> > > > into it.
> > > >
> > > > But I thought we were ok till today too.  Just 
> checking.  I also 
> > > > believe doing the scearios will make steps move very
> > > quickly for TTM
> > > > for our specs and output from this WG.  At least in theory.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > /jim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com]
> > > > >Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 8:48 PM
> > > > >To: Bound, Jim
> > > > >Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > > > >Subject: Re: Note on Scenarios for IPv6
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Hi Jim,
> > > > >
> > > > >>Picking on our Ent work as example.  We have had 
> pretty much the 
> > > > >>same intro and scope we believed was important since the v6ops
> > > > >interim meeting
> > > > >>and in Yokohamma.  Today we now learn there is a scope issue.
> > > > > Yokohamma
> > > > >>was 9 months or so ago.  We need to fix this folks.  It is
> > > > >not all the
> > > > >>teams fault or the working group.  Its some kind of process
> > > > >we are stuck
> > > > >>in.  We need to break it.
> > > > >
> > > > >Why do you believe that there is a scope issue for this
> > > document?  I
> > > > >have just read it, again, and I do not believe that there
> > > is anything
> > > > >wrong with the scope of this document.
> > > > >
> > > > >Obviously, there are still many incomplete sections that
> > > need to be
> > > > >completed, and there is some further editing needed, but I 
> > > > >believe that the scope and structure are fine.
> > > > >
> > > > >The important thing is that we write a set of 
> documents that help 
> > > > >us to understand how enterprise networks will
> > > move to IPv6,
> > > > >where/when/how/if they will need to run both IPv4 and
> > > IPv6, and what
> > > > >coexistence mechanisms will be needed to make this work.
> > > > >
> > > > >We broke the task into two pieces, scenarios and analysis,
> > > because we
> > > > >wanted to understand the problem space before we started
> > > working on
> > > > >the applicability of each coexistence mechanism to the
> > > problem space.
> > > > >I think that this document does a good job of defining the 
> > > > >problem space for our later analysis work.
> > > > >
> > > > >Margaret
> > >
>